The definition of servant leadership as defined by its creator, Robert Greenleaf, is that the focus of leaders is on others rather than upon self and on understanding the role of the leader as a servant. (Greenleaf, 1977) Additionally, the servant leader’s primary objective is to serve and meet the needs of others, which optimally should be the prime motivation for leadership. (Russel and McMinn, 2001) This truly sounds like an ideal leadership theory, assuming all of the factors stated above remain true, and are of genuine nature. Genuine is the key word. True, there are leaders of all kinds and one theory may not fit every organization. There are certain employers that require a strict chain of command, as well as order and discipline in order to succeed, such as the military. One of the best features of servant leadership is that it can’t be faked. Power hungry leaders will quickly show their true colors and their tactics will fail, resulting in a lack of trust, and as a result, lowering productivity.
One of the defining features of Servant leadership, as previously stated, is that it’s objective is to serve and meet the needs of others. (Russel and McMcinn, 2001) Real servanthood is a leadership style that relies upon the influence of self-giving without self-glory. (Stone, Russel, and Patterson, 2003) As we’ve looked over many other types of leadership theories, we know that every person has a different leadership style. And although servant leadership certainly seems like the most ideal theory, clearly, finding true servant leaders would be difficult. Considering alone the fact that it involves giving up one’s own self-glory, it would obviously, eliminate many people from succeeding as many leaders seek praise and rewards for their successes. It is human nature to want to be successful and to receive rewards for great work, whether it is done by that person alone, or from subordinates. So, as we now know, one of the cons of servant leadership is that true servants are difficult to come by.
Another disadvantage to servant leadership is that it takes time to put in place. The theory is built upon building trustworthy relationships, team building, and an overall sense of each person belonging in the workplace. This can’t be done in a short amount of time. Servant leaders need time to engage with workers, being to know and understand what motivates them, as well as knowing how they can meld the needs of the company with the needs of employees to create a productive workplace. Any workplace seeking a quick turnover using servant leadership will fail, and likely have to start all over again.
Servant leadership will not fit every organization. As already mentioned, servant leadership would fail greatly in any type of military setting where structure, rank, and discipline are of the highest priority. To consider this thought more deeply, think of any type of military movie you’ve watched. Do you think that leaders in the military take into consideration the thoughts and feelings of their junior enlisted? In general, the answer is no. The junior enlisted are new, and most likely inexperienced in task they will be given. The rank structure is built and relies on this to develop future leaders. As one low rank becomes more educated, they advance, and they become of more value to higher ranking leaders. Without this structure, productivity and the success of the military would cease. Servant leaders would quickly find that without structure and discipline, the military would cease to operate at its highest levels.
Of all the theories discussed this semester, Servant leadership seems like the most ideal, but most difficult to come by. Many of us have experienced a power-hungry leader, an authoritative leader, as well as team leadership. Servant leadership is truly unique and while it brings many great qualities to the table, it lacks a short-term effect, which in dire situations, can be crucial. Knowing that the outcomes of implementation could be overwhelmingly rewarding, it will remain something to be sought after, regardless of the disadvantages.
References:
Greenleaf, R.K. (1970). The servant as leader. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.
McMinn, T.F. (2001), “The conceptualization and perception of biblical servant leadership in the southern Baptist convention”, Digital Dissertations, 3007038.
Russell, R.F. (2001), “The role of values in servant leadership”, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 76-83.
jks5571 says
I was immediately drawn to read your post by the title alone. I too felt like this theory appears to be the most ideal out of the many we have learned about. For this reason, I was interested in your explanation of why it might not, in fact, the very best. It is true that the basic idea in this theory is that the leader must develop a sense of trust while also encouraging followers to grow as servant leaders themselves (PSU, 2018). In order to develop that sense of trust a leader needs time to cultivate a relationship with the individuals or team, and that takes time. It seems like this is the main point that you also have arrived at. Given a fair amount of time, servant leadership can be implemented with success, but not all industries have time like you mentioned. Military organizations or any high-turnover industries would not be able to implement this strategy effectively.
Additionally, Northouse (2016) pointed out, “being a servant leader implies following, and following is viewed as the opposite of leading” (p.241). While I can certainly see the logic in this statement, it struck me as curious. At the beginning of this course we learned that while there are many theories of leadership, it can also be thought of as a process versus a trait. In this process it was highlighted that in order for a leader to lead, not only do they need followers, but they can also be a follower themselves, passing the reign when the role is not best suited for them.
Serving and meeting the needs of others might be viewed as altruistic, but it is also is a great way to maintain or improve morale, most people like being appreciated, and they like getting the opportunity to display their expertise (Russel and McMcinn, 2001). It takes a leader who can identify their follower’s strengths and delegate tasks appropriately. Northouse (2016) states this very well, saying, “leaders should share control and influence” (p.240). I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, but the time does have to be there to learn people’s nuisances, how they are motivated, and what they value. In some cases, this simply is not possible, and I think you did a very good job at presenting that.
McMinn, T.F. (2001), “The conceptualization and perception of biblical servant leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention”, Digital Dissertations, 3007038.
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
PSU. (2018). Psych 485: Leadership in work settings. Lesson 11: Servant Leadership Defined. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1925331/modules/items/23786463
Russell, R.F. (2001), “The role of values in servant leadership”, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 76-83.